Flawed/short-sighted phase outs, collection plans and general species management

[Javan Rhino]

Longterm contraception is supposed to render females infertile in some species- not just Suidae. I have also seen that happen in carnivores and primates in the past. Single sex groups are an option in some species but not others- it has been suggested for the Red River Hog programme.

I'm not sure how much of this that I have right, but I think in some species it's not just contraception that causes complications with future breedings, but not breeding them in general - ie. not letting them breed in a regular pattern (quarterly, annually etc). Also, there are many species where females are wanted, but males (of which species generally can't be kept in bachelor groups) are very difficult to rehouse. How many zoos can build separate enclosures for single male oryx or bull elephants etc.

 

[Pertinax]

I'm not sure how much of this that I have right, but I think in some species it's not just contraception that causes complications with future breedings, but not breeding them in general - ie. not letting them breed in a regular pattern (quarterly, annually etc). QUOTE]

That is pretty much so. In species like Elephants, rhinos and Gorillas, and many others too I imagine, the females can sometimes 'shut down' reproductively if they aren't bred from on regular basis, and suffer other problems- infertility, difficult labour etc if they don't first become pregnant at an early enough age. Not always true, but frequently enough.

A couple of examples;

Elelphant- one of the Twycross females that had just one calf ten years ago (by the Chester bull Chang,) now appears to have reproductive problems which prevent her breeding again.

Gorilla- Salome at Bristol Zoo- one baby at London zoo in the 1980's, then left unbred until arrival at Bristol in 1998- had to undergo fertility treatment to become pregnant again.

Example of contraception problem-in the past Barbary Lions at Port Lympne were contracepted and when they tried to breed them again, it was several years before there was finally another birth.

Not sure how it works in Pigs/Suidae- what I don't quite understand in the RR Hog situation is that the population appears to be so inbred that with those pairs they don't currently wish to breed from, why should they want to breed from them again in the future? These breeding programmes seem to be built around a scientific/genetic 'model' which doesn't seem to allow for idiosyncracies in certain species.

 

[Rothschildi]

Another example is giraffes, if left un mated for a number of years (4+) females can stop cycling resulting in poor to no reproductive output if remixed with males after this time.

These breeding programmes seem to be built around a scientific/genetic 'model' which doesn't seem to allow for idiosyncracies in certain species.

Although the programmes do use genetic values to calculate certain parameters it would surely but up the judegment of the ESB/EEP coordinator of how these calculations are implemented. The coordinators should be individuals who have a vested interest/prior experience/succesfully kept and bred, the species in question.

 

[Arizona Docent]

Great discussion!

Since my primary area of interest/knowledge is cats, I will use them as my example to apply to the problem in general.

The initial thread posting mentioned the phase out of endangered persian leopards. You are not alone in your frustration. The Exotic Feline Breeding Compound in California recently imported a breeding pair to try to restart this program in the U.S. The founder/owner of that facility is also frustrated over the demise of both the persian leopard and north china leopard program. He is not opposed to amur leopards either - he has the largest breeding group of them in the country (around a dozen). He also has the only viable north china leopard group. San Diego used to have two leopard enclosures, one with persian leopard. But now they have orphaned pumas instead - how is that helping anything? Interestingly, they do NOT house any amur leopards.

I think a big part of the problem is the tradition of zoos to have only one exhibit for each type of animal. This has got to change. I applaud Minnesota Zoo for building a set of three exhibits for amur leopard and I applaud San Diego Safari Park's plan to build three exhibits for sumatran tiger.

What I would like to see, and I am talking about the U.S. specifically (although it could easily apply to Europe), is more regional planning based on climate. I think we are finally seeing this with tigers - amur tigers are being concentrated in northern zoos and sumatran and malayan tigers are being concentrated in southern zoos. This is the ideal solution for leopards - put amur in the northern states and persian in the southern states. Maybe desert zoos like mine could even work with UAE to start an arabian leopard program here.

 

[animal kid]

I am completely against culling in zoos but only for one reason, i would say at least 99% of zoos in developed countries have an emphasis on "conservation" so once the species hs become to numerous for zoos why aren't surplus animals released? it is the whole idea of zoos today to have back up populations and eventually release animals back into the wild.

One arguement against this is that some species cannot be released into the wild, to that i would say that there should be absolute minimum number of those animals in zoos and more emphasis on saving habitats and protecting there wild counterparts.

 

[condor]

i would say at least 99% of zoos in developed countries have an emphasis on "conservation" so once the species hs become to numerous for zoos why aren't surplus animals released?

VERY difficult and expensive to release animals. First you have to be sure it is 100% pure (many animals in zoos are hybrids between subspecies and if they were released they would pollute the gene pool of the wild population), then you have to be sure the animal can survive on its own in the wild and won't start contacting humans for food, then you have to make sure it is absolutely free of disease that could be transferred to the wild population, then you have to find a suitable place to release it (little or no poaching/risk of capture for wild animal trade, enough suitable habitat that isn't about to disappear, enough space for it to establish a territory outside territory of wild animals that already are there) and then you have to deal with all the authorities that have to allow it before it can happen. For the kind of money all that cost you could do a lot of conservation for the wild population that already exists. From a conservation point of view it can only be justified to release zoo animals back into the wild if there are extremely few (max. a few hundred) or none left in the wild.

 

[Steve Robinson]

Also, there are many species where females are wanted, but males (of which species generally can't be kept in bachelor groups) are very difficult to rehouse. How many zoos can build separate enclosures for single male oryx or bull elephants etc.

It will be interesting to see the direction that this discussion will take in a decade or so when the culling of surplus, zoo born, male elephants becomes a necessity.

 

[Steve Robinson]

I am completely against culling in zoos but only for one reason, i would say at least 99% of zoos in developed countries have an emphasis on "conservation" so once the species hs become to numerous for zoos why aren't surplus animals released? it is the whole idea of zoos today to have back up populations and eventually release animals back into the wild.

One arguement against this is that some species cannot be released into the wild, to that i would say that there should be absolute minimum number of those animals in zoos and more emphasis on saving habitats and protecting there wild counterparts.

Your opposition to culling appears to be based on some incorrect assumptions.

It is not necessarily "...the whole idea of zoos today to......release animals back into the wild".

That is called "spin" and, in the case of many species, can not and will not ever happen.

Many species may become extinct in the wild, but will never be extinct in the world because populations have been preserved in captivity. To ensure that those populations are genetically viable for as long as possible [way past our lifetimes], euthanasia is a very necessary management option.

 

[Monty]

I'd say the debate would be about wether a ZOO is allowed to cull animals in their care. Animals that are produced for the food industry are culled every day, and a large part of the debate would be if zoos are allowed to cull animals as well (their predators have to eat anyways, and the animals culled have a better live then many feed-animals).

My opinion is, and always have been that zoos are responsable for the animals in their care. Therefore, they shouldn't cull any of their animals on the account of EEP recommendations, unless it's totally unavoidable to keep the species alive in zoos. This means a VERY strict breeding policy, where only animals are bred that can either be housed by the zoo itself or has takers before the animals are born.

The only viable reason to cull animals that I have sofar come across, was the fact that blackbuck have a 50-50 birth ratio, but only a few males are needed. According to many zoos, bachelor herds are not possible because the males will attack and kill each other. In that case i believe a zoo could cull some of their males in order to keep the species alive in captivity.

Other then that, I believe many zoos could easily prevent breeding of unwanted animals by either contraceptive, or keeping the sexes apart. There's almost always no need to cull

I also like to add that in many countries it's illegal too, another good reason not to cull...

I hate the term cull and the practice of it, as it is a waste.

My view is probably due to me being a farmer and breeding animals for an income. I have Fallow deer and sell old females and most young bucks for slaughter and venison. If zoos did the same with their herbivores populations would be sustainable, excess males and old females are an asset not an expense and the zoos have a more profitable operation. I met a bloke last week who has 70 Hog deer on his farm as well as several other species. He sells excess females for $2000 each and males for $4000. If he could not do this he would not be able to afford to have them and a rare species would have a lower population.
I can not see how people can support farming animals for meat and can be against sustainable utilisation of other herbivores.
I would love to have my own zoo, but could not do it if I was not allowed to utilise excess animals, as I see it as hypocritical.

Carnivores are a little different, but I still see disposal of excess as wasteful, if there was a market which would return money to the zoo.
Why should zoos have to rely on gate income to survive while they have to waste other possible incomes.